How would you change the Aerospace Rules?

[Charistoph]

Just as a heads up, current aerotech rules do not account for conservation of momentum.

Good to know.  I haven't reviewed the most recent rules, nor seen a reference to such a change here.  I just remember it from the original BattleSpace days, yes, the one that came after Aerotech 2!

Because as is every person on a battletech warship dies the instant it fires its engines as the burn time for any maneuver is instantaneous.

That's news.  The normal timeframe for Aerotech and Battlespace was a full minute.  Considering that most dropships, much less warships, don't pull that level of acceleration that you describe, I do think your math is a little off on that.  The Thrust Points used are levels of acceleration, which are easily converted to Gs, which carries no specific amount of time with it, and are quite tolerable by a ship's crew (passengers may not be as much).  In addition, we go through far more severe "instant" accelerations all the time and survive quite easily.

As for my suggestion it does keep conservation of momentum in place. If your trucking at 6 speed and you spend 3 thrust left or right your still burning at 6 speed. Just now in different direction. You want to cut tighter turn, you'd have to spend thrust to slow down and turn which is exactly what you have to do now. All this does is eliminate the weird hex movement system, and sacrifices some of the requirement to spend thrust to turn to apply thrust.

Momentum is conserved across vectors.  If you spend 3 Thrust to the left will not stop any of your momentum from going "forward" at 6 speed, you'll just also be going 3 speed to the left as well.  Until you actually direct thrust against the forward vector will it alter speed against that.

But more to the point, Aerotech/Battlespace should not be replicating Wings of Glory/X-Wing/SWArmada, partially because the tech medium they operate with are so separate and disconnected.

[ColBosch]

Good to know.  I haven't reviewed the most recent rules, nor seen a reference to such a change here.  I just remember it from the original BattleSpace days, yes, the one that came after Aerotech 2!

AeroTech 2 was published several years after BattleSpace.

But more to the point, Aerotech/Battlespace should not be replicating Wings of Glory/X-Wing/SWArmada, partially because the tech medium they operate with are so separate and disconnected.

If the game isn't fun to play, then who cares how true to "canon" or "realism" it is? Personally I'd prefer to use Triplanetary's pseudo-vector movement system, but I think Armada would work for miniatures play.

[Nicoli]

Good to know.  I haven't reviewed the most recent rules, nor seen a reference to such a change here.  I just remember it from the original BattleSpace days, yes, the one that came after Aerotech 2!

That's news.  The normal timeframe for Aerotech and Battlespace was a full minute.  Considering that most dropships, much less warships, don't pull that level of acceleration that you describe, I do think your math is a little off on that.  The Thrust Points used are levels of acceleration, which are easily converted to Gs, which carries no specific amount of time with it, and are quite tolerable by a ship's crew (passengers may not be as much).  In addition, we go through far more severe "instant" accelerations all the time and survive quite easily.

While the game attempts to account for it it accounts for it extremely poorly. Most of the burn times to get the change in velocity would be well in excess of a minute. and if you changed your momentum from 3 to 2 you should actually move about 2.6 hexes. That and the fact that to do a maneuver you are constantly changing your direction of thrust along the entire length of the burn.

Momentum is conserved across vectors.  If you spend 3 Thrust to the left will not stop any of your momentum from going "forward" at 6 speed, you'll just also be going 3 speed to the left as well.  Until you actually direct thrust against the forward vector will it alter speed against that.

That is a system designed because you are restricted by the hexes in only doing movement in 60 degree angles. Trying to pull off maneuvers that are common in space maneuvering using a vector maneuvering system in hexes are non-intuitive at best. Of course if your smart or just have a lot of experience you've spend time either created actually maneuver diagrams to pre-plan common maneuvers or you do it in your head. By creating templates available to everyone you make it so that you don't need to do that.

But more to the point, Aerotech/Battlespace should not be replicating Wings of Glory/X-Wing/SWArmada, partially because the tech medium they operate with are so separate and disconnected.

The interesting thing is that while each of those three games that you mentioned use a template style movement system, none of them use the same system. Wings of glory uses multiple cards which are also the template to plan a couple of turns ahead. X-wing uses multiple cardboard templates with dials to plan semi-simultaneous movement. Armada uses a flexible plastic template and speed dials to handle sluggish maneuvering of large capital ships. Part of using a template system is determining what needs to be baked into your templates and designing templates to cover those. You want Newtonian style movement from thrusting in different directions, not a problem I can create a templates system that handle that. It's actually one of the easier systems because the results are fixed. If going A speed in X direction and you want to apply B speed in Y direction you will end up going C speed in Z direction.

[Starfox1701]

Or ending up with a math mess like starfleet battles

[Sabelkatten]

The maneuver system you describe sounds awfully much like the original AT1/BS system. The game moved away from that because frankly it's not a very good idea.

[Nicoli]

The maneuver system you describe sounds awfully much like the original AT1/BS system. The game moved away from that because frankly it's not a very good idea.

The just looked at it, the original AT1/BS system used a weird hybrid thrust maneuver system. it didn't use templates for normal stuff and was really a starting point while being stuck with hex based movement which is really awkward for movement in a Newtonian environment as you don't burn in 60deg increments.   

[idea weenie]

Interesting idea, but, instead, I'd rather just completely revamp the C-Bill costs for KF ships so that the Docking Collars were not so ridiculously priced to add on.

I'd like to the the Collars be a much smaller price increase, like 1/4 of what they are now, and instead see a SIZE multiplier for KF ships the same way Ground Units & ASF do it.

IDK, call it 5% per 50KT or something like that.

LFBs should still be pricey given what they do, but I'd like to see them cheaper by 25-50% or so.

What about if you could put extra collar on (beyond the 1/50kton limit), but they got much more massive and expensive as you did so?  I'd also like to make it where instead of 50kton break points, you'd factor in total 'effective size (not phrasing this right, need to demonstrate)

So assuming a Jumpship of 330ktons, it could have up to 6 DS hardpoints at the base price.

If you are willing to pay the mass and tonnage for more, it can have up to a total of 13 DS docking points, and the extra 7 are at the doubled price/mass.

A proper equation would have a smooth curve for the mass/cost of the DS hardpoints, depending on the mass of the Jumpship.  For example, a 200kton Jumpship might have 4 Docking points, and the 4th would be twice as massive and expensive as the first.  A 400kton Jumpship would have 8 Docking points, and the 8th would be twice as expensive and massive as the first.  Essentially, the twice as massive Jumpship has twice the capacity for additional Docking Collars.

It also means that adding extra 2 Docking collars to the smaller one will require more mass/cost than adding 2 collars to the larger Jumpship.

This would be a fun equation to create, where you sum up the number of Docking Collars, apply it to and equation like this, and have to divide by the Jumpship's mass.  The real fun part is if you use the mass of the Jumpship to the 2/3 power, as a Jumpship 8* as massive will only have 4* as much surface area.

[Hellraiser]

What about if you could put extra collar on (beyond the 1/50kton limit), but they got much more massive and expensive as you did so?  I'd also like to make it where instead of 50kton break points, you'd factor in total 'effective size (not phrasing this right, need to demonstrate)

So assuming a Jumpship of 330ktons, it could have up to 6 DS hardpoints at the base price.

If you are willing to pay the mass and tonnage for more, it can have up to a total of 13 DS docking points, and the extra 7 are at the doubled price/mass.

A proper equation would have a smooth curve for the mass/cost of the DS hardpoints, depending on the mass of the Jumpship.  For example, a 200kton Jumpship might have 4 Docking points, and the 4th would be twice as massive and expensive as the first.  A 400kton Jumpship would have 8 Docking points, and the 8th would be twice as expensive and massive as the first.  Essentially, the twice as massive Jumpship has twice the capacity for additional Docking Collars.

It also means that adding extra 2 Docking collars to the smaller one will require more mass/cost than adding 2 collars to the larger Jumpship.

This would be a fun equation to create, where you sum up the number of Docking Collars, apply it to and equation like this, and have to divide by the Jumpship's mass.  The real fun part is if you use the mass of the Jumpship to the 2/3 power, as a Jumpship 8* as massive will only have 4* as much surface area.

Interesting but, This idea will really only effect Warhips IMHO.  Jumpships don't have enough space available to be doubling or tripling up on the standard # of collars.  (At least I don't think they do).

Really though, even if they did.  We have very few examples in cannon of ships with maximum #'s of collars as it is.

The original basic 5 JS from DS/JS were maxed except the Scout which could hold a 2nd collar since you round fractions.

Many of the newer JS sacrifice collars to have some bonus weapons/armor/LFB etc etc.

Warships which have plenty of space for collars almost never max them.  Even the Mighty Potemkin could have actually had another 5 collars on it.

I'd actually like to see more WS take advantage of max DS collars like the Tracker & Fox do.

[Starfox1701]

Besides dropship carrying capacity is assumed to be tied into the structure hence the 1 per 50 k tons rule. So in order for this to work you would need to beef up the ships structure not the additional collars.

[idea weenie]

Interesting but, This idea will really only effect Warhips IMHO.  Jumpships don't have enough space available to be doubling or tripling up on the standard # of collars.  (At least I don't think they do).

Jumpships normally have 95% their mass in KF core.  I was tossing ideas to go with Hellraiser's idea of regular core being 90% of the JS mass.    :thumbsup:

Though that would be fun, where various core percentages are available.  95% would be the dirt cheap KF style, little more than the KF itself, some controls, and a few Dropships on the outside.  90% would be a more frontier style Jumpship, with more onboard cargo/fuel capacity.  At ~50% you are getting into ships where the main hull is the transport, instead of the Dropships on the outside.  At 25% you are designing full-fledged warships.

Cost multiplier might be [ship mass/KF core mass]².  So 50% could have a x4 multiplier, 25% would be x16 multiplier, and Star League espionage ships at 10% (or less) could be x100 multiplier or higher.

Warships which have plenty of space for collars almost never max them.  Even the Mighty Potemkin could have actually had another 5 collars on it.

I'd actually like to see more WS take advantage of max DS collars like the Tracker & Fox do.

I believe most of that is due to the cost of the KF core being affected by the number of Docking collars.  The Collars might only mass 1 kton each, but imagine the cost increase for a McKenna (or Leviathan) using the max number of Docking Collars.

Besides dropship carrying capacity is assumed to be tied into the structure hence the 1 per 50 k tons rule. So in order for this to work you would need to beef up the ships structure not the additional collars.

I figured the additional structure would be part of the DS Docking Collar tonnage.  Structure used for supporting the Docking Collar isn't useful for acceleration, and it isn't helping support the armor for better thresholding.  Since it only affects the Docking Collar, I'd just put the tonnage for that structure as part of the heavier Docking Collars mounted on a ship.

[Charistoph]

AeroTech 2 was published several years after BattleSpace.

Really?  I could have sworn I got Aerotech 2 before getting BattleSpace, but that could have been on the provider part, or I could be mixing up a ForgeWorld book in to it.

If the game isn't fun to play, then who cares how true to "canon" or "realism" it is? Personally I'd prefer to use Triplanetary's pseudo-vector movement system, but I think Armada would work for miniatures play.

There is a good point there.  Fun should be the important factor.  And while I do know there are grognards who do enjoy all the finickiness of the ancient system, it can be a little hard for people raised on New Math (much less Common Core Math) to keep up.

That being said, SWArmada's (there are two Armadas out there, btw, and Firestrom Armada uses a Manuevering Template) wouldn't work unless you were going to actively encourage your player's to purchase your competitor's tool.  It is something that is rather complex and actually requires building a plastic link chain.  Considering how hard it is to get CGL to produce plastic models on a regular basis, this would not be a viable solution at this time.

And as bad as the vectoring systems are, they are actually more flexible then going by the X-W/WoG manuevering templates.

While the game attempts to account for it it accounts for it extremely poorly. Most of the burn times to get the change in velocity would be well in excess of a minute. and if you changed your momentum from 3 to 2 you should actually move about 2.6 hexes. That and the fact that to do a maneuver you are constantly changing your direction of thrust along the entire length of the burn.

In order to change direction reliably in space, one usually stops thrusting unless one is desiring to widen their turn to more closely resemble a drift then a controlled maneuver.

That is a system designed because you are restricted by the hexes in only doing movement in 60 degree angles. Trying to pull off maneuvers that are common in space maneuvering using a vector maneuvering system in hexes are non-intuitive at best. Of course if your smart or just have a lot of experience you've spend time either created actually maneuver diagrams to pre-plan common maneuvers or you do it in your head. By creating templates available to everyone you make it so that you don't need to do that.

So, why stick to hexes in the first place?  Hex-based systems are remarkably out of date at this point. 

And as I said above, templates tend to be restrictive, and unnecessarily so.  In addition, not all ships will have the same performance envelopes, which is one more reason I do not think that a universal template is a practical solution.  This would be more noticeable on the ASF level then the warships, but still it is a factor.

[ColBosch]

Indeed, why stick to hexes? And just because one system uses restrictive maneuver templates doesn't mean that ALL templates have to be the same. Car Wars used a "maneuver key" with different angles marked out on it. This is another form of template that allows for more freedom of movement.

Furthermore, I don't want people thinking about the math at all (or, at least, as little as possible). I want a game focused on tactics, where the key to victory is maneuver and concentration of firepower - like a real battle - not metagaming the numbers. Keep the math simple and intuitive, no matter what system you learned arithmetic under, and you've opened the game up to literally millions of potential players.

[Sabelkatten]

In space math isn't metagaming, it's realism... You've pretty much got the choice of math or "airplanes in SPAAACE!".

Of course as long as you've got a hex map the math is all of "add N to X and subtract M/2 from Y" before moving X hexes in the first direction and Y hexes in the second.

[ColBosch]

Please see my earlier comment: I don't care if it's realistic if it isn't fun. That little formula you posted is PRECISELY why I don't play "realistic" vector movement board games. Even if I could stomach it, I'm sure as hell not going to interest any of my friends in that BS.

[Charistoph]

Indeed, why stick to hexes? And just because one system uses restrictive maneuver templates doesn't mean that ALL templates have to be the same. Car Wars used a "maneuver key" with different angles marked out on it. This is another form of template that allows for more freedom of movement.

Those templates are just a different form of hexes, though.  Indeed, they can be even more restrictive if you limit ship classes to only using a specific set (see X-Wing). 

Firestorm Armada uses a Turning Template (provided free in every Patrol Fleet box), and ships have to move forward a certain distance before using it (called a Turn Limit).  The Template limits it to a maximum 45 degrees per turn.  So if a ship has a 2" Turn Limit, in order to turn 90 degrees: it moves forward 2", turns 45 degrees, then forward 2", then turns 45", adding a final inch to the manuever for the template.  It is closer to SW Armada's then X-Wing, but SW Armada is limited by the card and the tool.  But both are far less restrictive and flexible then X-Wing's template set, and less that CGL would have to develop and the players would have to carry.

Furthermore, I don't want people thinking about the math at all (or, at least, as little as possible). I want a game focused on tactics, where the key to victory is maneuver and concentration of firepower - like a real battle - not metagaming the numbers. Keep the math simple and intuitive, no matter what system you learned arithmetic under, and you've opened the game up to literally millions of potential players.

Sorry, space travel involves math, even if it is figuring out how far you should maneuver against how far you can maneuver.  Heck, math is involved in every day life, and I don't have a problem doing a little countdown to resolve a situation.  And, guess what some people actually find that more fun then templates.

[Nicoli]

So, why stick to hexes in the first place?  Hex-based systems are remarkably out of date at this point. 

And as I said above, templates tend to be restrictive, and unnecessarily so.  In addition, not all ships will have the same performance envelopes, which is one more reason I do not think that a universal template is a practical solution.  This would be more noticeable on the ASF level then the warships, but still it is a factor.

I think the hexes should go away in space. There are still some advantages on ground combat with lots of terrain as its easy to determine what terrain you cross, if you ignore the problems with height on a 2D map. With a wide open map that is less of an issue.

As for being restrictive that isn't a bad thing. The more options you have the greater chance of analysis paralysis in players, the longer it takes to reference and determine what options apply, and a greater wall of stuff that needs to be learned for new players.

Sorry, space travel involves math, even if it is figuring out how far you should maneuver against how far you can maneuver.  Heck, math is involved in every day life, and I don't have a problem doing a little countdown to resolve a situation.  And, guess what some people actually find that more fun then templates.

I'd point you to the game Kerbal Space Program as an example of what we should be look at toward a new Aerospace system. If your not familiar with it, it is a computer game where you get to run a Space agency where you build the rockets out of parts and pilot them on missions. While all of the game is based on math, and knowing how to apply it helps you if you get really into it, I can still teach a 10 year old how to plot a Mun (moon) landing mission. This is because the game has really great system that allows you to place a point on your trajectory for a burn then pull on nodes to apply thrust till you get a new trajectory that ends where you want it to. The game does the math and tosses up a marker on your navball for you to point to and gives a little meter and clock to shows how long you need to burn for. This allows the game system to very easily translate what you want to do into you doing it regardless of your background knowledge or abilities.

This is something that a template system done right handles very well.

[Charistoph]

As for being restrictive that isn't a bad thing. The more options you have the greater chance of analysis paralysis in players, the longer it takes to reference and determine what options apply, and a greater wall of stuff that needs to be learned for new players.

And the alternative is frustration when your templates do not allow for simple maneuvers that would be allowed in a Thrust Point system.

I'd point you to the game Kerbal Space Program as an example of what we should be look at toward a new Aerospace system. If your not familiar with it, it is a computer game where you get to run a Space agency where you build the rockets out of parts and pilot them on missions. While all of the game is based on math, and knowing how to apply it helps you if you get really into it, I can still teach a 10 year old how to plot a Mun (moon) landing mission. This is because the game has really great system that allows you to place a point on your trajectory for a burn then pull on nodes to apply thrust till you get a new trajectory that ends where you want it to. The game does the math and tosses up a marker on your navball for you to point to and gives a little meter and clock to shows how long you need to burn for. This allows the game system to very easily translate what you want to do into you doing it regardless of your background knowledge or abilities.

This is something that a template system done right handles very well.

That last sentence is the problem, "done right" is a difficult challenge to do.  Then there is the consideration that there is already enough stuff to put in the game's case without adding far more.  An X-Wing player's kit is usually 1 part models, 1 part cards, and 20 parts tokens and templates.

[ColBosch]

Well, you guys have fun here. I'm just going to go ahead and do my own thing.

[HobbesHurlbut]

That last sentence is the problem, "done right" is a difficult challenge to do.  Then there is the consideration that there is already enough stuff to put in the game's case without adding far more.  An X-Wing player's kit is usually 1 part models, 1 part cards, and 20 parts tokens and templates.

So. How many of those tokens have to do with the movement system AT all? Nevermind that the movement template can be used by ANY model.

[Daryk]

Almost seven years ago, I posted the below to try to rationalize the Small Craft construction rules:

"Small Craft"
The designation "Small Craft" now applies to any craft 500 tons or less.  This class is further broken down into "light" and "heavy" sub-categories, with "light" constituting craft 100 tons or less.  All Small Craft may be designed under either the Tech Manual "Fighter" or "DropShip/Small Craft" rules with the following modifications:
1) Craft designed under the "DropShip/Small Craft" rules have a minimum crew of:
     one at 50 tons and below,
     two at 51-100 tons, and
     three above 100 tons.
2) Non-pilot crew members of craft designed under the "DropShip/Small Craft" rules count as gunners when determining gunner requirements (i.e. a craft with a crew of two may have up to six weapons without incurring a requirement for an additional gunner, while a crew of three can handle 12 weapons),
3) Craft designed under the "DropShip/Small Craft" rules determine free heat sinks using the military or civilian DropShip entries in the table, depending solely on their military or civilian designation (i.e. only civilian Small Craft use the "Small Craft or DropShip (Civilian)" entries). 
4) Small Craft designed as "DropShips/Small Craft" may employ "bay" quality crew quarters (to a minimum of .25 tons).
5) Small Craft designed as "Fighters" may employ Large Fusion Engines as described in TacOps, to include XL and Light models, but not XXL.
6) Small Craft designed as "Fighters" have a minimum crew requirement of one per 100 tons (round up).  Each crew member requires a "cockpit" (3 tons) that includes an ejection seat and redundant life support systems.  Small Craft not designed as "Fighters" do not have ejection seats.
7) All Small Craft refer to the Aerospace Fuel table as normal (i.e. those 400-500 tons only receive 70 points per ton).  Those designed as "Fighters" do not dedicate weight to fuel pumps.
8 ) Military Small Craft designed as "Fighters" have one external hard point per five tons, to a maximum of 20.
9) Small Craft designed as "DropShips/Small Craft" have integral ECM capabilities as described for "Small Craft" in StratOps.  Those designed as "Fighters" do not.
10) Small Craft may not mount Capital weapons, but may mount Sub-Capital weapons.

With regard to movement and combat:
1) Light Small Craft may employ  "Squadron" deployment rules in appropriate combat situations (i.e. large numbers of units on either side).  Heavy Small Craft may not.
2) Small Craft designed as "Fighters" make use of the heat scale.  All others operate under the zero net heat principle.
3) The last two initiative sub-phases are modified to read: "7. Heavy Small Craft, 8. Light Small Craft"
4) Advanced Initiative Modifiers for Light and Heavy Small Craft are +3 and +0, respectively.  These modifiers replace the existing Fighter and Small Craft entries on p. 63 of StratOps.
5) Craft designed as "Fighters" use the "Fighter" rules for Vertical Landing and Liftoff.  All others use the DropShip/Small Craft rules (to include self-inflicted damage).
6) To hit modifiers for capital weapons are adjusted as follows:
     Light Small Craft +5 (+3 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)
     Heavy Small Craft +3 (+1 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)
7) To hit modifiers for sub-capital weapons are adjusted as follows:
     Light Small Craft +3 (+1 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)
     Heavy Small Craft +1 (+0 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)

One later addition: "Light" Small Craft cubicles are identical to Fighter Cubicles.  "Heavy" cubicles are 50 tons plus the largest tonnage to be housed.

Since then, I'd have to add that Small Craft can use bay quality quarters (vice at least Steerage).  There was an errata that removed that capability from all ships, despite Small Craft being far more impacted by the change.

Separately, I've also toyed with reducing "Strategic" thrust down to 1/10 what it is now.  This would get it somewhere closer to what pure matter/anti-matter conversion can do.

[Charistoph]

So. How many of those tokens have to do with the movement system AT all? Nevermind that the movement template can be used by ANY model.

Straight 1,2,3,4,5,6 (also includes the Boot Leg maneuver).

Long Turn 1,2,3,4 (curved symbol).

Tight Turn 1,2,3  (right angle symbol).

And no, they can't all be used by any model.  Not every model can do the tight turns nor use the full extent of the straight lines.  Now, every model you bring to a fight might fit both of those templates you bring, but each ship has a limited selection of those templates they can use.  There is a huge difference in options between the A-Wing and the YT-1300, after all.

In Aerotech, we're looking at many different performance envelopes across the numerous fighters.  Then add in the Small Craft.  Then there are the Drop Ships.  Now, that's just using the "small" scale, without considering how Jump Ships and Warships work.  To go there, we go to a larger scale, and with that do we relegate fighters to fit within narrowly set bands of performance or allow them their full freedom?

Sure, templates can fit all that, but how many do you want to ask people to carry?  X-Wing got away with it because it is Star Wars, even though there was little difference from Wings of Glory.  CGL MIGHT be able to get away with it if it will actually draw in X-Wing players, but without the theatrical ticket draw, would it work?  In general, I don't think so (as a side note, it might if Disney releases another Last Jedi, and I'm saying this as a lover of Star Wars).  Battletech isn't quite a big enough name to provide the pull away from Star Wars.

And I will be honest, initially I didn't get in to X-Wing because I was concerned about the longevity of the game and the lack of factions.  Now, I'm still concerned about that, but I don't like their template and dice system.  It's great for getting that WW2 fighter feel that Star Wars has, but it is still an inflexible system that I don't feel fits in void combat of Battletech.  Atmospheric battle, maybe, but Aerotech/Battlespace needs to take both environments in to account.

[Maingunnery]

With the large scale differences in Aerotech, would a card game be the best way to play?

[Kidd]

With the large scale differences in Aerotech, would a card game be the best way to play?

Blasphemer! :D

[Starfox1701]

Has anyone looked at battletech's existing tabletop miniatures rules and considered using them as a basis for space movement?

[idea weenie]

Indeed, why stick to hexes? And just because one system uses restrictive maneuver templates doesn't mean that ALL templates have to be the same. Car Wars used a "maneuver key" with different angles marked out on it. This is another form of template that allows for more freedom of movement.

Hexes are easy because you can record locations as 'h0305-C', and know that the unit is in hex 0305, and the prow is facing direction C.  Easy to count with during the game, and good for checking in case you have to pick up the game for later.  A free-form map is harder to keep track of exactly where the units are, unless you want to use X and Y coordinates, measure to the nearest centimeter for sanity.  You then have to choose facing, and how much detail you want.

The other detail for space combat is that all weapons use the same range bands, so you can expect that as soon as 1 ship gets within the range band, all ships in range are going to fire as soon as it crosses, and not one bit earlier.

Furthermore, I don't want people thinking about the math at all (or, at least, as little as possible). I want a game focused on tactics, where the key to victory is maneuver and concentration of firepower - like a real battle - not metagaming the numbers. Keep the math simple and intuitive, no matter what system you learned arithmetic under, and you've opened the game up to literally millions of potential players.

Agree on this.  If we did make a system, we'd need munchkins to try and make min-maxed designs, so we can see where the errors are.  Designs or items that make a ship unbalanced get nerfed, and the munchkins go at it again.  We'd need to repeat this often, to make sure that a variety of designs are actually practical in combat, plus making sure that the sheets for the various units are easy to read.

We would also need to determine the main scale of the map.  For example, the BT board game has Mechs (and some vees) as the 'central' size range, with infantry treated as counters, and a Rattler scale unit treated as boss units.  Aerotech 3 would have Dropships as the 'central' size range, with ASF squadrons as the infantry unit, and Warships as the boss units.

Has anyone looked at battletech's existing tabletop miniatures rules and considered using them as a basis for space movement?

Surface movement has the detail of a surface to maneuver with, plus that if you turn the engine off, you will stop.  Space has the little detail of nothing to push on/against (meaning you have to thrust in order to start moving or change vector), and if you want to slow down you have to cancel your momentum, against using the engine.

Now what I would like to see is internal flywheels so a ship can change facing without burning fuel.  It will likely be slower than using thrust, does not change vector, but it uses zero fuel.  Lower mass fraction per flywheel arrangement means it takes longer to rotate the ship, but also means more mass available for cargo or weapons/defenses/sensors.

[beachhead1985]

That doesn't really work.  Battletech doesn't have the gear to do repulsor lift tech, or whatever the heck it is, that allows for ships to operate in vacuum like they were in air.  It operates more on the physics we know in terms of thrust vectoring, and that doesn't work with the Wings of Glory system very well.  It's a lot more convenient to operate on that system, not doubt, but currently the fluff just doesn't support it at all.

I'm sure the rules could be adapted. They would need to be. Can you imagine that licensing process?

And Attack Wing/Armada looks so damn GOOD on the table top that nothing else can compete with it.

[Starfox1701]

Assuming the miniatures rule don't already have a section covering space battles then obviously the rules will need some adaptation. I merely suggest that instead of trying to force a square peg into a round hole that we start with a rules set that already has much in common with the part of the game we are modifying and go from there.

[Charistoph]

I'm sure the rules could be adapted. They would need to be. Can you imagine that licensing process?

Another reason to avoid it.  If it even sniffs of WoG/X-W/SWA, CGL would be back in HG territory, but this time with Fantasy Flight Games.

And Attack Wing/Armada looks so damn GOOD on the table top that nothing else can compete with it.

While SWA looks great, most of Attack Wing needs a repaint due to the poor manufacturing standards used for the Star Trek Ship Clix game.  The ones that were made later are much more competitive.  But game-wise, I don't care for SWA's template, personally, and I haven't seen much of Attack Wing in play.  When painted up, Firestorm and DropFleet ships look pretty good, too.

[Hellraiser]

K-F Drive mass of a unit = that unit’s Total mass multiplied by light years multiplied by 1.5% to make JumpShips worth their tonnages.  Have a good day y’all.

HOLY 2 YEAR THREADCROMANCY!!    :o


I do like that formula though, with 1 additional note, 2x for Standard Core.

Allows for shorter/longer jump ranges with lower/higher core size.

It also matches perfectly with my thoughts that Compact/Standard cores should be a perfect 45/90% of each ship class.   (Assuming basic 30ly range)

Makes me wonder about some "Slow cargo/people movers" that could be built as Standard Core Jumpships but only jump 20LY.